Handful of countries highjack international agreement, intended to protect human health and environment.

Geneva, May 10, 2013

Civil society groups attending the Rotterdam Convention conference in Geneva are expressing grave alarm that the Convention has been hijacked by the asbestos industry, which is determined to prevent the environmental and health protections of the Convention from being implemented.

For the fourth time, a handful of countries allied to the asbestos industry have refused to allow chrysotile asbestos to be added to the Convention’s list of hazardous substances, even though the Convention’s expert scientific committee has repeatedly recommended that it be listed and even though it has been recognized that the listing of chrysotile asbestos meets all the criteria of the Convention. The committee’s conclusions are endorsed by all leading medical organisations and by the World Health Organisation.

“It is outrageous that seven countries – Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, India and Vietnam – are turning the Rotterdam Convention into a Convention that protects profits of the asbestos industry, instead of protecting human health and the environment,” said Kathleen Ruff, co-coordinator of the Rotterdam Convention Alliance.

“The Convention requires that countries practice responsible trade by obtaining prior informed consent before they export hazardous substances to another country,” said Laurie Kazan-Allen, coordinator of IBAS, UK. “But these seven countries are determined to practice irresponsible trade and to hide the hazards of chrysotile asbestos.”

Fernanda Giannasi, a labour inspector in Brazil, reports that, in her job, she daily sees products containing chrysotile asbestos entering her country without labels, and tells of the great many victims who develop cancers from asbestos exposure in her country. “Since these countries refuse to follow responsible trade information practices, it will force other countries to resort to other measures, such as a full ban on asbestos,” said Giannasi.

“Russia and Zimbabwe recently ratified the Convention and attended the Rotterdam Convention conference of the parties for the first time,” said Sugio Furuya of the Asia Ban Asbestos Network. “It seems that they ratified the Convention with the sole purpose of wrecking it in order to protect the profits of their national asbestos industry. This is shameful, cynical conduct on their part. They are ruthlessly destroying the Convention to achieve their aim.”

“If the Convention is not going to be implemented and become empty words on paper, then what is the point of having the Convention?” asked Emmanuel Odjam-Akumatey of Ecological Restorations, Ghana. “The credibility of the Convention, and all 152 countries who have ratified the Convention is a at stake.”

“These seven countries, allied to the asbestos industry, are demonstrating contempt for the right of countries to prior informed consent, which is the whole purpose of the Convention,” said Alessandro Pugno of the Association of Asbestos Victims Families, Casale, Italy. That is why we have once against brought one hundred people, representing asbestos victims organisations, in front of the UN headquarters in Geneva and presented to the president of the conference their letter, calling for chrysotile asbestos to be listed.

“As well as civil society, the vast majority of parties to the Rotterdam Convention are dismayed and supported the statement by Australia yesterday stating that the cost of inaction will be huge,” said Elina Doszhanova of Social-Eco Fund NGO from Kazakhstan. “Although we are a major exporting country of chrysotile asbestos, there is no in-depth research and understanding of the current and future health and environmental costs of inaction.”

“Chrysotile asbestos is widely used in Kyrgyzstan, but our citizens are not all informed; we call on our governments to apply the precautionary principle, to protect public health,” says Dr Vladimir Korotenko, BIOM Kyrgyzstan.

“This small group of countries tries to use as an excuse, that listing would cause extra costs. They have been repeatedly told that this is not a criterion of the Convention. Furthermore, this argument is nonsense and omits the enormous economic costs caused by chrysotile asbestos, which is already up in the hundreds of billions of dollars. While industry takes the profits, the costs are put on the shoulders of the public taxpayer. The World Bank recognized this fact and therefore recommended against use of chrysotile asbestos,” said Alexandra Caterbow, senior chemical expert at WECF International.

Last year, an Italian court sentenced two asbestos executives to 16 years in jail for criminally suppressing information about the hazards of asbestos, resulting in up to 3000 deaths, including citizens living near their asbestos-cement factories.

“By not listing chrysotile asbestos, the Convention is enabling the industry to carry on the same criminal cover-up of the hazards of chrysotile asbestos, which will result in hundreds of thousands more tragic deaths, which could and should be prevented,” said Dr. Barry Castleman, former consultant on asbestos to the World Bank. “This is a crime against humanity and the whole world should be scandalized.”

Fernanda Giannasi, said the handful of asbestos countries achieved a small delay, but by doing so they further isolated themselves from the world community and incensed the majority of parties to the Convention who insist on obtaining their right to know as soon as possible. Civil society and victims organisations are determined to continue their struggle to protect all people from deadly hazards of chrysotile asbestos.

For more information:

Kathleen Ruff, kruff@bulkley.net

Alexandra Caterbow, alexandra.caterbow@wecf.eu

Laurie Kazan-Allen, lka@btinternet.com

For information in Russian:

Vladimir Korotenko, BIOM, Kyrgyzstan, vladk77@gmail.com

Elina Doszhanova, Social-Ecological Fund, Kazakhstan, edoszhan@gmail.com+

Both Zimbabwe and Russia will, for the first time, be attending the Rotterdam Convention Conference of the Parties in Geneva as parties to the Convention. Previously, they attended as observers, but both have now ratified the Convention.

Both Zimbabwe and Russia intend to use their new status as parties to the Convention as a means to sabotage the Convention by preventing the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance, when, on May 7, the issue is put before the 170 countries attending the conference.

Both countries are close political allies of the asbestos industry. Russia is the biggest exporter of asbestos in the world, representing about 75% of global export. Zimbabwe hopes to re-open its asbestos mines and restart exporting asbestos. Both want to export asbestos, while covering up the fact that it is hazardous.

As well as the usual government and embassy representatives, the Zimbabwe delegation to the Geneva conference includes five members of the Zimbabwe National Chrysotile Taskforce (see list below). Both the Vice Chairman of Turnall Holdings Limited and the Chief Executive Officer of SMM Holding Limited, who also sits on Turnall Holdings, are members of the Zimbabwe delegation.

Mr. Darlington Musarurwa, Business Editor of the Zimbabwe Sunday Mail is a member of the National Chrysotile Taskforce and is also a member of the Zimbabwe government delegation.

Mr. Musarurwa acts more like a public relations agent for Turner Holdings and the Zimbabwe asbestos industry, than as an independent journalist.

In an article in the April 28, 2013 Sunday Mail about the Rotterdam Convention conference, Dark cloud hovers over asbestos, SMM (Shabanie Mashaba Mines) revival in focus, Decision to determine future of asbestos trading, Mr Musarurwa promotes the views of Zimbabwe government politicians, the International Chrysotile Association and the chairperson of the National Chrysotile Taskforce, Ms Abigail Shoniwa, who is also Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Industry and Commerce.

Ms Shoniwa is cited in the article stating “despite the international lobby against chrysotile, the future of the industry in Zimbabwe is strong as local demand remains solid.”

In his article, Mr. Musarurwa reports that the Government of Zimbabwe will oppose the listing of chrysotile asbestos:

The fate of thousands of workers hoping for the revival of Shabanie Mashaba Mines (SMM), including the future trade of asbestos — principally produced by listed industrial concern Turnall Holdings — might ultimately be determined at a crucial international meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, next week.

Presently, there is an active and aggressive lobby by European countries and some of their proxy companies in Africa to list chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance whose trading needs to be closely monitored and ultimately banned.

However, Government is confident that the campaign will falter as Zimbabwe, which will vote against the move, will for the first time attend the meeting — the 6th Conference of Parties (COP) of the Rotterdam Convention to be held from May 7 to May 10 — as party after having deposited instruments of ratification of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, the globe’s three leading chemicals and waste treaties, effective May 30 last year.

Mr. Musarurwa does not disclose the fact that he is actually attending the Rotterdam Convention conference, along with Ms Shoniwa, as a member of the Zimbabwe government delegation. Neither does he disclose the fact that he is a member of the National Chrysotile Taskforce, along with Ms Shoniwa.

Mr. Musarurwa’s article includes no information from reputable scientific organisations regarding the hazards of asbestos. Instead, he puts forward the usual asbestos industry propaganda, referring to a possible “conspiracy by well-organised groups of activists”, who wish to replace asbestos with other products in order to “help rake in a fortune”.

Mr. Musarurwa cites the discredited asbestos lobby group, the International Chrysotile Association: “Further, it has not always been scientifically proven that replacement fibres, the uses of which are encouraged by international lobbies, are safer than chrysotile fibres,” said the ICA in a paper circulated before next week’s meeting.

In February 2013, over a hundred scientists from thirty countries issued a Statement  “condemning in the strongest possible terms the dangerous misinformation that the International Chrysotile Association disseminates”.

It is an international scandal that Russia and Zimbabwe intend to continue the criminal practice of covering up the hazards of asbestos.

The following five persons are members of the Zimbabwe National Chrysotile Taskforce and members of the Zimbabwe government delegation:

1. Mr. Shame Chibvongodze, Secretary, Zimbabwe National Chrysotile Taskforce

2. Mr. John A. Jere, Managing Director, Zimbabwe National Chysotile Taskforce

3. Mr. Prince James Mutizwa, Vice Chairman, Turnall Holdings Limited, National Chrysotile Taskforce

4. Mr. Chirandu Dhlembeu, Chief Executive Officer, SMM Holding Limited, National Chrysotile Taskforce

5. Mr. Darlington Musarurwa, Business Editor, The Sunday Mail, National Chrysotile Taskforce

On May 7, 2013, the 170 countries attending the Conference of the Parties to the UN Rotterdam Convention will be asked to approve the recommendation of the Convention’s expert scientific body to put chrysotile asbestos on the Convention’s list of hazardous substances.

In the letter below, organisations around the world, representing thousands of asbestos victims, call on all countries to support the listing and to end the cover-up of asbestos hazards.

Association of Asbestos Victims Families, Casale, Italy

Dear Parties to the Rotterdam Convention:

We call on every country attending the 6^th Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention to support putting chrysotile asbestos on the Convention’s list of hazardous substances, as the Convention’s expert scientific body (the Chemical Review Committee) is, for the fourth time, recommending.

Chrysotile asbestos represents 100% of the global asbestos trade today and, over the past one hundred years, 95% of all asbestos traded was chrysotile asbestos. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, are hazardous to health. Yet, for the past many decades, the asbestos industry covered up and denied the scientific evidence that all asbestos can cause disease and death. As a consequence, many thousands of people have lost their lives, including our loved ones and comrades.

In February 2012, an Italian court sentenced two Eternit asbestos executives to 16 years in prison for their criminal conduct in having covered up the hazards of asbestos, thus causing a human and environmental catastrophe. Yet today, the asbestos industry is exporting asbestos to developing and middle income countries, while continuing to deny its hazards.

The Rotterdam Convention requires that countries exporting hazardous substances practice responsible trade and obtain prior informed consent before exporting a hazardous substance on the Convention’s list, thus enabling countries to protect the health of their citizens and the environment.

All Parties to the Convention have a duty to practice responsible trade and to respect the right of prior informed consent.

We, who have witnessed at first hand the terrible suffering and death caused by asbestos, urgently call on every Party to the Convention to support placing chrysotile asbestos on the Convention’s list of hazardous substances.

Romana Blasotti Pavesi

President, AFEVA (Association of Asbestos Victims Families, Casale, Italy)

Piazza Castello 31, 15033 Casale Monf.to AL Italy

ENDORSED BY THE FOLLOWING ORGANISATIONS THAT REPRESENT THOUSANDS OF ASBESTOS VICTIMS AROUND THE WORLD:

National Association of Asbestos Victims (ANDEVA), France

Association of Asbestos Victims (ABEVA), Belgium

Asbestos Victims Support Groups’ Forum (AVSGF), UK

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), USA

Brazilian Association of Asbestos Exposed People (ABREA), Brazil

Spanish Federation of Associations of Asbestos Victims and Communities (FEDAVICA), Spain

Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia (ADSA), Australia

Canadian Society for Asbestos Victims (CANSAV), Canada

Korean Federation for Asbestos Victims

Occupational Health and Safety Association (OHSA), India

Asbestos Interest Group in Kuruman, South Africa

Krantikari Majdoor Sangh, Mumbai, India

Agrupación Peruana de Expuestos y Victimas del Asbesto (APEVA), Peru

German Asbestosis Victims Group

Dutch Asbestos Victims Committee

Committee for Asbestos Mine Victims in Korea

Busan committee for asbestos Victims in Korea

Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group, UK

Northeast Asbestos Support and Awareness Group, UK

A Walk to Remember Victims of Asbestos – Canada and USA

Victims of Asbestos/Industrial Disease, Canada

Canadian Voices of Asbestos Victims, Canada

Saskatchewan Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (SADAO), Canada

Japan Association of Mesothelioma and Asbestos-related Disease Victims and Their Families, Japan

Hong Kong Association for the Rights of Industrial Accident Victims (ARIAV), Hong Kong

Gippsland Asbestos Related Diseases Support Inc. (GARDS), Australia

Asbestos Victims Society of South Australia Inc. (ADSSA), Australia

Bernie Banton Foundation, Australia

Asbestos Related Disease Support Society, Queensland, Australia

18 Asbestos lobbyists will be attending the UN Rotterdam Convention conference in Geneva in May. Their goal? To protect the asbestos industry’s profits by defeating health protections

The goal of the Rotterdam Convention is to protect people from being harmed by hazardous substances. But the asbestos industry sees health protections as interfering with their profits.

The Convention promotes environmental and social justice by requiring that countries act responsibly when they export hazardous substances. The Convention provides a legally binding Right of Prior Informed Consent, which enables developing and middle income countries – where most hazardous substances are exported – to better control their borders and better protect the health of their people and their environment.

The asbestos industry, however, makes hundreds of  millions of dollars in profits by exporting asbestos. The industry is fighting to be allowed to continue its shameless practice of hiding the fact that asbestos is hazardous. This marketing strategy certainly helps sales, but destroys lives.

Eighteen asbestos lobbyists will be attending the UN Rotterdam Convention conference in Geneva with the sole purpose of defeating  the recommendation of the Convention’s expert scientific body that chrysotile asbestos – the only form of asbestos sold in the world today – be placed on the Convention’s list of hazardous substances, which would require safety warnings and Prior Informed Consent be obtained before asbestos is exported.

The asbestos lobbyists will be working closely with the Russian government delegation. It is, in fact, impossible to distinguish between the Russian government and the asbestos lobby. Of the 1 million tons of asbestos exported every year, Russia exports three quarters of this amount.

Russia has therefore a big financial interest in in ensuring continued irresponsible  trade in chrysotile asbestos and continued marketing of chrysotile asbestos as a product that can be “safely used”.

Russia has indicated that it intends to oppose the listing of chrysotile asbestos at the May Rotterdam Convention conference. The Russian government’s delegates and the asbestos lobbyists will be working hand in glove to achieve their ignoble goal.

ASBESTOS LOBBYISTS ATTENDING THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION CONFERENCE

Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association, India

Mr. Abhaya Shankar, Chairman, Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association

Mr. Vivek Chandra Rao Sripalle, Director, Safety Health and Environment, Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association

Association Ukrainian Chrysotile Corporation

Mr. Oleksandr Sierkin, Chairman, Association Ukrainian Chrysotile Corporation

Mr. Ruslan Koval, Executive director, Association Ukrainian Chrysotile Corporation

Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (CCI RF)

Dr. Garislav Shkolenok Expert, Monitoring and Analysis Branch, Department of Administrative Support to Business, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation

Chrysotile Association, Russia

Mr. Konstantin Saranchuk, Legal Advisor, Chrysotile Association, Moscow

Mr. Vladimir Galitsyn, Executive Director, Chrysotile Association, Moscow

Confederation of Employers of Kazakhstan (CEK)

Mr. Nurlan Omarov, Advisor, Confederation of Employers of Kazakhstan(CEK)

Federação Internacional dos Trabalhadores do Amianto Crisotila FITAC, Brazil

Mr. Adilson Conceiçao Santana, President, Federação Internacional dos Trabalhadores do Amianto Crisotila FITAC

Indian Chemical Council (ICC)

Mr. Shunmugam Ganesan, Chairman, International Treaties Expert Committee, Indian Chemical Council (ICC)

Mr. Marcondes Braga De Moraes, International Affairs Coordinator, International Affairs, Indian Chemical Council (ICC)

Instituto Mexicano de Fibroindustria A.C.

Mr. Antonio Galván Carriles, Presidente del Consejo Directivo, Instituto Mexicano de Fibroindustria A.C.

International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”, Asbest, Russia

Mr. Andrey Kholzakov, Chairman / Adviser for international affairs, International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”

Mr. Dmitrii Selianin, Adviser for international affairs, International Alliance of Trade Union Organizations “Chrysotile”

International Chrysotile Association, Quebec

Mr. Emiliano Alonso, Legal Advisor, International Chrysotile Association

Mr. Jean-Marc LeBlond, Chairman, International Chrysotile Association

Vietnam National Roof Sheet Association

Mrs. Bui Thi Thu Hang, Secretary, Vietnam National Roof Sheet Association

Ms. Pham Thu Thuy, Vietnam National Roofsheet Association

An Italian court has sentenced two leading asbestos industrialists to sixteen years in prison for criminal conduct in covering up the hazards of asbestos.

Yet, unbelievably, at the upcoming May meeting of the UN Rotterdam Convention, Russia will be fighting to carry on the same deadly deception in order to export asbestos, while covering up its hazards.

What is shocking is that the UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is collaborating with Russian asbestos propagandists who are determined to sabotage the UN Rotterdam Convention and prevent chrysotile asbestos from being listed as a hazardous substance under international law. This would permit Russia to continue exporting asbestos without being required to disclose that it is hazardous.

Russia’s foremost promoter of chrysotile asbestos, Dr. Evgeny Kovalevskiy,  is lead scientist at the Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Health of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (SRIOH). Both Dr. Kovalevskiy and this Institute have for years been promoting the interests of the asbestos industry. In doing so, Dr. Kovalevskiy has misrepresented the findings of scientific research he and others carried out at the Uralasbest mine in Russia, claiming that these findings showed that chrysotile asbestos was not causing harm to Russian asbestos workers, when the findings showed no such thing.

In 2012, Dr. Kovalevskiy was a witness on behalf of the Brazilian Chrysotile Institute (an asbestos lobby organisation) before the Supreme Court of Brazil, arguing that Brazil should not ban chrysotile asbestos and that chrysotile asbestos should not be put on the Rotterdam Convention’s list of hazardous substances. Kovalevskiy falsely claimed that his Uralasbest research showed that chrysotile asbestos can be safely used and should continue to be used.

IARC turns a blind eye to misrepresentation of scientific findings

Misrepresenting research data so as to advance the interests of the asbestos industry violates basic scientific and ethical standards. Yet IARC has appointed Dr. Kovalevskiy and his Institute (SRIOH) as collaborators in an IARC research project on workers at the same Uralasbest mine, despite the fact that Dr. Kovalevskiy and SRIOH are dedicated asbestos propagandists and despite the fact that Dr. Kovalevskiy for fifteen years has misrepresented the findings of his earlier Uralasbest research to the advantage of the asbestos industry.

At the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention (COP6) in May 2013, Dr. Kovalevskiy, who was part of the Russian delegation at COP5 in 2011, will be fighting to defeat the listing of chrysotile asbestos. He will be wearing two hats – one as a lobbyist for the Russian asbestos industry and one as an IARC scientific collaborator.

Scientists around the world have written to Dr. Christopher Wild, the director of IARC, asking that IARC end its collaboration with Dr. Kovalevskiy and his Institute. They have asked for Dr. Wild’s resignation, if he is not willing to take action to end this collaboration, which violates the scientific and ethical standards that IARC is expected to uphold.

Earlier letters from scientists to Dr. Wild and to Margaret Chan, criticized other instances of collaboration by IARC with activities by Dr. Kovalevskiy and his Institute to promote asbestos use. In a letter of December 13, 2012, scientists and health activists criticized IARC’s participation in a sham scientific conference in Kiev in November 2012, organized by Dr. Kovalevskiy, SRIOH and the Russian Ministry of Health, which had as its agenda to defeat the listing of chrysotile asbestos at the May Rotterdam Convention conference.

In addition, the scientists criticized the paper that IARC presented at the Kiev conference, pointing out that the paper included outdated and incorrect data, which minimized harm caused by chrysotile asbestos. It is hard to believe that this was simply incompetence on IARC’s part, as IARC is fully aware that the data it presented was incorrect, but any alternative explanation for this strange conduct is even more disturbing.

To date, these serious concerns have been ignored. IARC has posted information on its website regarding the Uralasbest project, showing that the research is financed by the Russian Ministry of Health, a strong supporter of asbestos use. The company that owns the Uralasbest mine and the Russian Ministry of Health are, it seems, in charge of collecting the data that the study will rely on.

In Russia, with a population of 141 million people, there is not a single scientist or a single scientific organisation that opposes the Russian government’s policy of promoting use of chrysotile asbestos. Or, at any rate, there is not a single scientist or scientific body that dares to do so.

President Putin has declared his strong support of the Russian asbestos industry. It is widely understood to be unwise to challenge President Putin’s policies.

In a Russian newspaper, Vladimir A. Kochelayev, Deputy Director General of JSCo Uralasbest, is already expressing the hope that IARC’s research project at his Uralasbest mine will bring an end to discussions on banning chrysotile asbestos.

Russia and the Rotterdam Convention

The purpose of the Rotterdam Convention is to require responsible trade in hazardous substances, which increasingly are exported to developing and middle income countries. There is widespread concern that receiving countries may lack the necessary information and resources to protect their population and their environment from being harmed by such hazardous substances. The Convention therefore empowers developing and middle income countries by requiring that Prior Informed Consent be obtained, prior to export of any substance on the Convention’s list.

At the May meeting in Geneva, the recommendation of the Convention’s 31-member expert scientific committee to place chrysotile asbestos on the Convention’s list of hazardous substances will be put forward for the fourth time. Chrysotile asbestos represents 95% of all asbestos traded over the past century. For the past twenty years, chrysotile asbestos represents the totality of the global asbestos trade.

Up until now, Canada has acted as leading saboteur, by blocking consensus to list chrysotile asbestos. Canada has cynically stated, however, that since Quebec’s asbestos mines are now closed down, there is no purpose for Canada to continue to block the listing and it will cease to do so.

At the May conference, however, Russia will, for the first time, be participating as a full party to the Convention. Previously, Russia attended with just observer status.

Russia is the world’s leading exporter of asbestos, by far. Of the total world figure of two million tons of asbestos mined in 2011, Russia produced one half of that amount: one million tons. And Russia exports three quarters of the asbestos it mines, so that in 2011, it exported 748,564 tons.

At the May Rotterdam Convention conference, Dr. Kovalevskiy will almost certainly make use of his status as an IARC collaborating scientist in arguing that chrysotile asbestos should  not be listed as a hazardous substance and that no action should be taken to control the export of chrysotile asbestos until after the Uralasbest project has been completed.

IARC’s conduct represents a sad betrayal of scientific integrity and of the protection of public health in developing and middle income countries.

In an article in a Russian newspaper (translated below), the Deputy Director General of the Uralasbest asbestos mine expresses the hope that the IARC study at Uralasbest will put an end to any talk of banning asbestos.

Thousands of occupational histories in the research of the century

The best scientists, experts, epidemiologists and researchers of the world from France, Netherlands, United Kingdom and other countries have drawn their attention towards asbestos again. Now, however, the point is quite different: the scientists are not opposing the use of the mineral, but supervising a great research project carried out by Russian specialists and those from International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Uralasbest Plant. This research should be the most non-biased and independent in all factory’s history. The results will finally reveal if asbestos is really as harmful as it is supposed to be.

About the Research

This far-reaching research was initiated by Ministry of Health of Russian Federation which committed this task to Institute of Medicine of Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, headquartered in Moscow. Enumerating other organizations and institutions involved in the research would take the entire page. The main point is the result: internationally recognized experts became project supervisors.

Research project operating name is Studying Chronic Diseases Impacted by Asbestos among the Staff Employed in Extracting and Enriching Chrysotile Asbestos, through Retrospective Follow-up Study. The project began in 2011 and is supposed to have finished by 2015.

As a result, the scientists are to obtain non-biased data on chrysotile influence on human’s health. It is well-known that the attitude towards the topic ranges from aggressively negative to valiantly justifying. Each and every opinion is questionable and could be disputed: either incorrect methods were used, or the equipment and researcher qualification level didn’t correspond to the project goal. However, the present project implies an in-depth research under the best world experts’ supervision. The result obtained ought to be the closest to truth ever.

The essence of the research is occupational history analysis of all workers employed in extracting and enriching chrysotile asbestos for more than a year, including those who have already left the job, from 1975 up to 2010. An occupational history is actually the entire employee’s life during and after their employment period at the plant, up to their death, provided that it has already occurred. Each and every employee is identified by multiple parameters: first and last name, place of employment during different periods of life, asbestos dust level, total dust dosage received during the whole employment period, death cause (in case the person is dead). At this stage plant employees have identified 25,000 people so far: 11,000 are fully identified and 14,000 identifications are under follow-up revision.

Many Uralasbest departments and services are involved into data collection for researches, in particular Process Control Center, Central Production Control Laboratory, HR Department, Labor and Wages Department and OSH department. A special group for information search and data entry has been created. The group is headed by Izolina A. Smirnova.

First Results

While undertaking the research, regular meetings between plant workers and Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) supervisors are organized. The latest meeting was held in early November. This is the second time a foreign delegation visits Uralasbest. The program was very varied and included excursions, meetings, discussions etc.

On November 8 Uralasbest held a conference where the scientists discussed the research project progress and workscope. On the delegation part the attendees were: Yevgeny Kovalevsky, leading researcher in Occupational Medicine Research Institute of Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (RAMS); Sergey Koshansky, head of Yekaterinburg Scientific Medical Center Laboratory; Joachim Kristoffer Schuz, head of International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in France, and his colleagues, Sarah Schoenfeld and Monique Moissonnier. On the whole, the delegation consists of 11 members, among them there are such prominent researchers as Johannes Kromhout, Professor of Utrecht University (Netherlands), Anti Tossavainen, consultant (Finland), Alexander Akleyev, Director of Ural Research and Implementation Center of Medical Radiology (Federal Agency for Medicine and Biology, Russia), Igor Bukhtiyarov, Director of Moscow Institute of Occupational Medicine (RAMS) and others.

The conference was dedicated to discussing the results achieved in 2012, as well as to the plans for next year.

I consider these regular meetings supervising the course of work extremely important – Sarah Schoenfeld interpreted Joachim Kristoffer SCHUZ’s communication – It is very useful for us to be close to the process. We have noticed great progress in your research during 2012. The database you have managed to collect is the most significant tool to make others believe us. We all are lucky to have involved world-famous specialists in this project. We have prepared a detailed roadmap describing our future actions. Next year will be dedicated to data collection. We are to present primary analysis of dust content since 1930-s up to now. This is a crucial stage of our research.

Sarah Schoenfeld told about IARC employees’ reaction towards the data collected by people employed at the plant: “This is just incredible!” our colleagues exclaimed. “The cases when we have so much data are very rare!” Today, when I presented data to our Committee, a famous epidemiologist repeated those words “It is absolutely incredible, so much employee data is collected with most detailed occupation history descriptions! I have never seen anything like that before. Now we can initiate primary analysis in the Measurement Center.”

An interesting remark concerning research result interpretation was pronounced by Yevgeny Kovalevsky. It turns out that universal community assesses research results not by reports we’ve got so used to here in Russia, but by articles published in scientific magazines. If there are no articles, no actions were taken.

Hopes

“We don’t expect chrysotile asbestos to be proclaimed an absolutely benign mineral,” Vladimir A. Kochelayev, Deputy Director General of JSCo Uralasbest, shares his opinion. “However, we hope the research will be objective, putting an end to discussions on banning chrysotile.”

As a side note, Julian Peto, a famous professor in London School of Hygiene and Epidemiology, is also among delegation members. In 1999 he announced that “within 35 European population will reduce by 250,000 because of mesothelioma and more than by 500,000 as a result of lung cancer, caused by asbestos exposure”. 10 years passed but there are still no signs of this prediction to come true. In 2009 his attitude towards chrysotile significantly changed. During his presentation at Harvard Symposium dedicated to universal trends of mesothelioma death rate Peto mentioned that “exaggerating chrysotile health hazard distracts our attention from amphibole harmful nature”.

His report conclusions caused aggressive reactions from anti-asbestos lobbies side, which also included pickets and “battle-cries” like “Do not acknowledge Peto’s report!”. Nowadays Mr. Julian Peto is present at Uralasbest Plant and is delving into the subject. This is not the only example of foreign reporters changing their opinion towards the point.

On the whole, a heartening historical moment has come now, when European and Russian scientists are not on the opposite sides of the barricades, but, hopefully, share interest in an objective view on the question of safe and monitored chrysotile usage. Neither politics nor economy can serve as a base for of a non-biased research project. Only science and precise data can.

M. BATLUK Photo by the author

March 27, 2013

Dear Dr. Wild,

Re: Our grave concerns regarding IARC’s collaboration (Uralasbest research project on chrysotile asbestos) with an Institute and scientists who have demonstrated unethical and improper conduct by misrepresenting their scientific findings in an earlier Uralasbest research project on chrysotile asbestos.

We call on you to terminate IARC’s collaboration with the Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Health of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (RAMS) and with Dr. Evgeny Kovalevskiy because of unethical and improper scientific conduct on their part – conduct which is incompatible with the standards expected of IARC or any reputable scientific agency.

1) In 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) terminated the status of RAMS as a WHO Collaborating Centre. The WHO was disturbed by the close relationship between RAMS and the Russian asbestos industry. The director of RAMS, Dr. N. Izmerov, was, in fact, the first president of the Russian Chrysotile Institute, the industry’s lobby group, and is a longtime advocate for the asbestos industry.

2) Dr. Kovalevskiy and other scientists at RAMS continue to promote the interests of the Russian asbestos industry instead of pursuing impartial science. They have lobbied the European Union and the Supreme Court of Brazil not to ban chrysotile asbestos. In so doing, Dr. Kovalevskiy and the other RAMS scientists deny the overwhelming independent, reputable, scientific evidence, including that of IARC, regarding the hazards to health posed by chrysotile asbestos.

It constitutes scientific misconduct that, in their presentations to the European Commission(1), to the Brazil Supreme Court(2), in scientific papers(3) and to the public(4), Dr. Kovalevskiy and the other scientists at RAMS deliberately misrepresent the findings of the 1995 joint Finnish-Russian-American research project(5) on asbestos miners and millers at Uralasbest, Russia, the world’s biggest producer of chrysotile asbestos.

Dr. Kovalevskiy and other scientists at RAMS falsely and repeatedly state that the Uralasbest research project proved that chrysotile asbestos no longer causes harm to the health of Russian asbestos workers, and that the research project provided evidence that supports their position that chrysotile asbestos should continue to be used.

These statements are a gross misrepresentation of the scientific findings of this project; they are totally false. The Uralasbest research project provided no such evidence. The study did not include cancer incidence and provided no evidence whatsoever regarding cancer risks from exposure to chrysotile asbestos.

It should furthermore be noted that the mean number of years since first exposure to chrysotile asbestos for the workers included in the Uralasbest study was 25 years, which is an insufficient latency period to allow any reliable risk estimates to be made of the long-latent asbestos-related diseases.

It is a gross deception on the part of Dr. Kovalevskiy to claim that this study provided evidence that only workers exposed to huge levels of chrysotile asbestos in the distant past had been harmed, and that no harm had been caused to the health of workers since those times.

A signer to this letter, Dr. Richard A. Lemen, was the principal representative of the United States and one of the originators of the Joint US/Finnish/Russian study. He confirms that the findings of this earlier Uralasbest study, and of the papers published as a result of this study, provide no scientific evidence that supports the argument that chrysotile asbestos can be safely used.

To use data, collected in the name of the Uralasbest Joint research project, as supposedly constituting evidence that supports continued use of chrysotile asbestos is a misrepresentation of the data and constitutes either incompetence or unethical conduct on the part of Dr. Kovalevskiy and the other RAMS scientists.

In light of these facts, it is indefensible that IARC has installed Dr. Kovalevskiy as its lead scientist on a new Uralasbest research project on chrysotile asbestos.

3) Just as Dr. Kovalevskiy and the RAMS scientists misused the earlier Uralasbest research project as ammunition in their lobbying efforts to promote continued use of asbestos, the Russian government is already using IARC’s collaboration in the new Uralasbest research project to crush initiatives to ban asbestos in developing countries(6).

The Russian asbestos industry newsletter reports(7) that, during trade negotiations with Thailand, Russia succeeded in persuading the government of Thailand to delay its proposed ban on the use and import of asbestos. In announcing this decision, the head of the Russian trade delegation, Igor Manylov, specifically noted, as information to justify the deferment of the ban, that “Russia has initiated a study with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the impact of asbestos and asbestos containing materials on human health.” (translation)

This represents a perversion of scientific research. IARC should not allow its name and reputation to be used by the government of Russia to defeat initiatives by health professionals in developing countries to ban asbestos.

4) The RAMS Research Institute of Occupational Health, of which Dr. Kovalevskiy is director, co-sponsored the international conference Chrysotile asbestos: assessment and risk management, held in Kiev, Ukraine in November 2012. The conference was proposed by Russia and the Ukraine at the 5th Rotterdam Convention Conference of the Parties (COP5) in 2011 as a means of defeating the recommendation of the Convention’s expert scientific body (the Chemical Review Committee) to list chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance, which Russia and the Ukraine opposed.

At the Kiev conference, a draft resolution was presented. It called for a refusal to list chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance at the upcoming May 2013 6th Conference of the Parties. The draft resolution stated that the Kiev conference “was held in accordance with recommendations of the V Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention (19-25 June 2011, Geneva).” The draft resolution was approved by the Kiev conference.

The draft resolution put forward totally false information. In no way whatsoever did the 2011 Conference (COP5) endorse the recommendation put forward by Russia and the Ukraine. In fact, it was specifically opposed as an effort to undermine the recommendation of the Chemical Review Committee(8).

At COP5, the WHO expressed disappointment that a decision to list chrysotile asbestos had not been taken “given that the criteria for listing have been met”.

It is indefensible that IARC is collaborating with the RAMS Research Institute of Occupational Health – an institute that has demonstrated a history of misconduct in serving the interests of the asbestos industry and currently is seeking to undermine the UN Rotterdam Convention.

We ask you, as Director of IARC, to discontinue collaboration with scientists and organizations known to misrepresent research data for the promotion of commercial interests.

We have copied this letter to Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization. If you refuse to address these grave concerns of improper and unethical conduct on the part of IARC, then we ask that Director-General Chan call for your resignation and initiate a review of how IARC permitted this profoundly respected agency of the WHO to be infiltrated by a scientist, such as Dr. Kovalevskiy, who distorts scientific findings to advance the interests of the asbestos industry.

Sincerely,

DR RICHARD A. LEMEN, Ph.D., MSPH, Assistant Surgeon General (ret.), Rear Admiral, USPHS (ret.); Adjunct Professor, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

DR ARTHUR L. FRANK, MD, PhD, Professor of Public Health, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA

DR BARRY CASTLEMAN, ScD, Environmental Consultant, USA; author, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, USA

DR COLIN L. SOSKOLNE, Professor of Epidemiology, Dept of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Visiting Fellow, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Australia; Immediate Past-President, Canadian Society for Epidemiology and Biostatistics

KATHLEEN RUFF, author, Exporting Harm; Senior Human Rights Adviser, Rideau Institute; Co-coordinator, Rotterdam Convention Alliance (ROCA)

Copy:

Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization

Giuseppe Ruocco, Aide to Renato Balduzzi, Minister of Health, Italy

THE FOLLOWING SCIENTISTS SUPPORT THE ABOVE LETTER:

DR. NICHOLAS A. ASHFORD, PhD., JD, Professor of Technology and Policy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA; Former Chair, US National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health

PROF. NURSEN BASARAN, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Toxicology, Ankara, Turkey

DR. MICHELINE BEAUDRY, Ph.D., professeure retraitée, l’Université Laval, Québec, Canada

DR. FIORELLA BELPOGGI, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre, Ramazzini Institute, Italy

DR. JAMES BROPHY, PhD, University of Windsor; former Executive Director, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, Canada

PROFESSOR SURASAK BURANATREVEDH, MD, DrPH, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Thailand

DR. CHALERMCHAI CHAIKITTIPORN, PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Thailand

DR SANJAY CHATURVEDI, MD, FAMS, FIPHA, FIAPSM, Professor & Head, Dept. of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, India

DR. ING. PAIBOON CHOUNGTHONG, King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand

ANDRÉ CICOLELLA, Scientific adviser, INERIS, National Institute for Environment and Risks, France

DR. AQIEL DALVIE, Associate Professor; Programme Leader, Chemical Toxicity and Exposures, University of Cape Town, South Africa

EVA DELGADO ROSAS, Licencie en Sociologie, Secretaria Tecnica, Consejo Nacional de Salud Ocupacional, Presidenta, Asociacion Frente al Asbesto, Perú

DR. LUIZ AUGUSTO FACCHINI, Medical Epidemiologist, Professor, Department of Social Medicine, Counselor, ABRASCO (Brazilian Association on Collective Health), Brazil

DR. CATHEY EISNER FALVO, MD, MPH, President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment; Professor and Chair, International Public Health, New York Medical College (retired); Professor of Pediatrics, NYMC (retired), USA

DR. HELENO R. CORRÊA FILHO, Dr.PH, MD, Epidemiologist, Associate Professor, UNICAMP, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Brazil

DR. ERICA FRANK, MD, MPH, Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada

DR. JAIRO ERNESTO LUNA GARCÍA, PhD, Professor, National University of Colombia

DR. LUIS CUAUHTÉMOC HARO GARCÍA, PhD, Academia de Salud Comunitaria, Promoción a la Salud, Universidad de la Ciudad de México, Mexico

DR THOMAS H GASSERT, MD, MSc, Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Visiting Scientist in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Harvard University School of Public Health, USA

FERNANDA GIANNASI, Civil Engineer, Labor Inspector, Brazilian Federal Ministry of Labor and Employment; Founder, ABREA, the Brazilian Association of People Exposed to Asbestos, Brazil

DR PIERRE GOSSELIN, MD, MPH, Director, WHO-PAHO Collaborating Center on Occupational and Environmental Health, CHUQ-INSPQ-DSP, Québec, Canada

DR. JOSEPH GRAZIANO, PhD, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences and Professor of Pharmacology, Columbia University – Mailman School of Public Health; Director, The Columbia University Superfund Research Program, New York, USA

DR MORRIS GREENBERG, MB, FRCP, FFOM, former, HM Medical Inspector of Factories, UK

DR JAMES HUFF, PhD., Guest Researcher, Chemical Carcinogenesis, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Research, Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA

DR. PETER F. INFANTE, D.D.S., Dr.P.H., F.A.C.E., Peter F. Infante Consulting, LLC; Formerly Director, Office of Standards Review, Health Standards Program, Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), Washington, D.C., USA

DR MOHAMED F JEEBHAY, MBChB, PhD, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa

DR. T K JOSHI, Director, OEM Programme, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, New Delhi; Fellow, Collegium Ramazzini, Italy; Visiting Professor, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, USA

DR. MARGARET KEITH, PhD, University of Windsor; former Research Coordinator, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, ON, Canada

DR. DAVID G. KERN, M.D., M.O.H, Consultant in Occupational and Environmental Medicine; Formerly, Associate Professor of Medicine, Brown University, USA

DR. PATTAPONG KESSOMBOON, MD, PhD., Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand

DR JOHN R. KEYSERLINGK, MD., MSc., FRCS(C)., FACS, Director, Medicine & Surgical Oncology, Ville Marie Oncology Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

DR. RICHARD KLASA, MDCM, FRCPC, Lymphoma and Melanoma Tumor Groups, Division of Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency and Department of Experimental Therapeutics, BC Cancer Research Centre;Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada

DR. NIKLAS KRAUSE, MD, MPH, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Environmental Health Sciences and Dept. of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health; Director, Southern California NIOSH Education and Research Center, University of California Los Angeles, USA

DR. VITHAYA KULSOMBOON, PH.D., Associate Professor and Director of Social Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

PROFESSOR LESLIE LONDON, Director: School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town Health Sciences Faculty, South Africa

DR. GUADALUPE AGUILAR MADRID, PhD, Unidad de Investigación en Salud en el Trabajo, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI.IMSS, Mexico

DR. DAVID C.F. MUIR, PhD, FRCP, Professor Emeritus, MacMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

Dr. PETER ORRIS, MD, MPH, FACOEM, FACP, Professor and Chief of Service, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System, USA

DAVID OZONOFF, MD, MPH, Professor of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, USA

DR. DOMYUNG PAEK, MD, MSc, ScD, Dean, School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

DR. DANIELA PELCLOVA, MD, Ph.D., Professor of Occupational Medicine, Fellow, Collegium Ramazzini; Head, Department of Occupational Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

DR. CUAUHTEMOC A. JUAREZ PEREZ, MSc, MD, Unidad de Investigación en Salud en el Trabajo, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI.IMSS, Mexico

DR PITCHAYA PHAKTHONGSUK, MD, PhD, Occupational Health Unit, Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Thailand

DR. WANTANEE PHANPRASIT, PhD, Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Thailand

DR. FRIEDRICH POTT, MD, Professor of Hygiene 1980, Emeritus member, Collegium Ramazzini, E.W.Baader-Preis for Occupational Medicine, Germany

PROF. QAMAR RAHMAN, Ph.D, D.Sc (hc), FNASc, FST, Visiting Professor, Rostock University, Germany; Dean of Research (Science and Technology), Amity University, Lucknow India

DR. SUTHEE RATTANAMONGKOLGUL,PhD, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University,Thailand

DR. KNUT RINGEN, DrPH, MHA, MPH, Senior Science Advisor, CPWR: The Center for Construction Research and Training; Vice President, ISSA Section for Prevention in the Construction Industry; Secretary and Immediate Past President, Scientific Committee on Occupational Health in the Construction Industry; Past Chair, US National Advisory Committee on Safety and Health in the Construction Industry, USA

DR. BEATE RITZ, MD, PhD, Chair, Department of Epidemiology, Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

DR. ALLAN H. SMITH, MD, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology and Director, Arsenic Health, Effects Research Program, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA

DOTT. MORANDO SOFFRITTI, Direttore Scientifico, Istituto Ramazzini e Segretario Generale, Collegium Ramazzini, Italy

DR. JERRY SPIEGEL, MA, MSc, PhD, Professor, School of Population and Public Health; Director, Global Health Research Program, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

DR.TIM K. TAKARO, MD, MPH, MS., Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada

DR. ANNIE THÉBAUD-MONY, PhD, Directeur de recherche honoraire à l’Inserm, Université Paris 13; Présidente de l’Association Henri Pézerat (Santé Travail Environnement); Porte parole de Ban Asbestos France

DR. FERNAND TURCOTTE, MD, MPH, FRCPC, Professor Emeritus of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada

DR. CATHY VAKIL, MD, CCFP, FCFP, Assistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

DR. RODOLFO ANDRADE DE GOUVEIA VILELA, PhD, Professor, School of Public Health, Environmental Health Department, São Paulo University, Brazil

DR. JUNG-DER WANG, MD, ScD, Chair, Department of Public Health, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine, Tainan, Taiwan

DR. RICHARD P. WEDEEN, MD, Professor of Medicine and Professor of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, The New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA

DR. HANS-JOACHIM WOITOWITZ, MD, Univ.-Prof. Emeritus; Former Director, Institute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Giessen, Germany

DR. ROBERT D. WINSTON, MD, FRCPC, FACP, Clinical Assistant Professor, UBC Division of Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Abbotsford, Canada

DR. ANNALEE YASSI, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Professor and Canada Research Chair, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Notes: Titles and affiliations are given for identification purposes only. Some of the signers have been involved in asbestos litigation.

[1] Judgment On The Problem Of Total Ban Of Asbestos By The Russian Group Of Governmental Experts, Russian Chrysotile Institute, 2002 http://chrysotile.ru/en/site/index/antiasbestovaja_kampanija/mnenie_rossijskih_uchenyh

[2] Testimony, Brazil Supreme Court, August 31, 2012, Evgeny Kovalevsky, Director, Research Institute of Occupational Health of Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

[3] Chrysotile Russian Experience in Occupational Health, Abstract, N. F. Izmerov, State Run Organization Research Institute of Occupational Health of Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, 2006, http://www.chrysotile.com/en/conferences/speakers/Nikolai_Izmerov.aspx

[4] The only solution to the problem:the controlled use of asbestos, Yevgeny Kovalevsky, Russia, Live Journal, July 29, 2010, Russian Chrysotile Institute, http://ru-chrysotile.livejournal.com/6363.html

[5] Comparison of Work History and Chest X-ray Changes among Chrysotile Miners and Millers.Kovalevsky et al, AOH (2002)

[6] Russia crushes a plan by the government of Thailand to ban asbestos, Kathleen Ruff, March 1, 2013, RightOnCanada, http://www.rightoncanada.ca/?p=1926

[7] Chrysotile is on trial in Thailand, Chrysotile Today, Russian Chrysotile Institute, August 2012 http://chrysotile.ru/ru/files/get_file/46/2d232e7779641fe817b38b4e4f36c0f9

[8] Earth Negotiations Bulletin, International Institute for Sustainable Development,Vol. 15, No. 187, http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb15187e.pdf : “An international scientific conference on chrysotile asbestos to examine all scientific data prior to CRC8 (8^th meeting of the Chemical Review Committee) was proposed. This was opposed by several parties, who noted that the CRC’s recommendation is final.”

On April 1, the Minister of Health of Peru, Midori de Habich, signed a bill to ban asbestos and submitted it to President Ollanta Humala Tasso. The bill states that governments have a  responsibility to protect the health and environment of citizens and refers to the scientific evidence of harm caused by all forms of asbestos. The bill forbids the import of chrysotile asbestos after 180 days from the passage of the bill and forbids the use of chrysotile asbestos after 360 days.

“Today we are so close to banning asbestos in Peru,” rejoiced Zully Arlene Pinchi Ramirez , leader of a civil society organisation, Solidarios ABC, which has been working with the Peruvian Health Ministry for three years to achieve a ban on asbestos.

Below is a letter that health defenders have sent to the President of Peru, urging him to approve the bill and to resist the lobbying efforts of the asbestos industry, who will do their utmost to defeat the bill, in order to protect their profits, rather than the health of the people of Peru.

How the asbestos industry has for years blocked a ban on asbestos in Peru

For more than a decade, the Canadian, Mexican, Colombian and global asbestos lobby has succeeded in blocking efforts of health defenders in Peru to ban asbestos.

In 2000, Chile was the first country in Latin America that led the way in banning asbestos. The Canadian asbestos lobby and its political ally, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, did all they could to interfere in Chile and block the ban, but did not succeed.

The asbestos lobby feared that Peru would follow Chile in wanting to ban asbestos; they were determined to prevent this.

“Peru is the country that should have followed the domino effect started in Chile,” states Luis Cejudo Alva, president of the Mexican asbestos lobby organisation, Instituto Mexicano de Fibro Industrias (Mexican Institute of Fibre Industries), in his report CHRYSOTILE IN LATIN AMERICA – PERCEPTIONS AND FACTS. The efforts of those trying to get a ban passed in Peru would have been successful, states Alva, had it not been for the quick actions and active participation of the Canadian Chrysotile Institute (which had a lot of money, supplied by the Canadian government) and the International Chrysotile Association to prevent a ban.

Alva states that his own Mexican organisation, as well as  Ascofilbras, the asbestos lobby organisation in Colombia, also intervened in Peru to prevent a ban on asbestos. The two organisations made several trips to Peru to lobby the Health Ministry and the Peruvian Congress. “So far, we have been able to stop in its tracks all actions started,” boasted Alva. “But as we are aware that these attacks will not stop, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico have joined forces and are financing and driving actions through the recently formed Peruvian Chrysotile Association, so as to prevent whatever actions are taken.”

Finally, it seems that the asbestos lobby is facing defeat in Peru and that health defenders are about to achieve a ban on asbestos.

It cannot happen quickly enough. In the letter below, health advocates around the world urge the President to move speedily to approve the Bill and make it law.

Letter to President of Peru from health defenders

April 1, 2013

Dear President Ollanta Humala Tasso:

We applaud the government of Peru for its initiative to protect the health of the population of Peru by introducing a Bill to ban the use of asbestos. We encourage you and your government to move ahead to implement the Bill.

Since 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended an end to the use of any asbestos as being the most effective way to end epidemics of asbestos-related diseases. The world’s scientific and medical experts overwhelmingly state that all forms of asbestos cause mesothelioma, lung and other cancers and asbestosis.

The Union for the International Control of Cancer, comprising more than 700 member organisations in 155 countries, including Peru, as well as the World Federation of Public Health Associations, the International Commission on Occupational Health, the International Social Security Association and the International Trade Union Confederation – representing 175 million workers in 151 countries – have all called for a global ban on the use of all forms of asbestos, particularly chrysotile asbestos. Over the past century, 95% of all asbestos used was chrysotile asbestos. For the past twenty years, chrysotile asbestos represents 100% of the global asbestos trade.

In every country, where asbestos has been used, it has created not only a human but also an economic disaster, adding billions of dollars in health care costs, compensation and to repair buildings in which asbestos-containing materials have deteriorated. For this reason, fifty-four countries have now banned the use of all forms of asbestos.

A recent Position Statement on Asbestos, published by the Joint Policy Committee of Societies of Epidemiology (JPC-SE), endorsed by numerous scientific organisations and scientists around the world, calls for a global ban on the mining, use and export of all forms of asbestos. The summary of the Statement is available in Spanish.

In this Statement, the epidemiologists strongly condemn the dangerous misinformation that the asbestos industry and its lobby organisations, such as the Chrysotile Institute of Peru, are disseminating.

We urge you to listen to reputable scientific organisations, such as those listed above, who are dedicated to protecting public health and have called for all use of asbestos to stop. We ask that you listen to dedicated civil society organisations that protect health, such as Solidarios ABC in Peru, who have asked your government to move forward and implement the bill to ban asbestos.

We understand that the asbestos lobby is trying to block your government’s initiative to ban asbestos. We urge you to put the health of your citizens ahead of the self-interest of the asbestos lobby, which is seeking to protect its financial profits.

We would be happy to provide you with additional information and we would be happy to meet with officials of your government, in person or through a Skype conference call, if that would be helpful.

Respectfully,

DR. STANLEY H. WEISS, MD, Chair of the Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology; Professor of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA

DR. EDUARDO JORGE RODRIGUEZ, médico, Especialista en Medicina del Trabajo; Jefe del Programa Nacional de Salud del Trabajador de la Dirección Nacional de Determinantes de la Salud e Investigación; Coordinador de la Comision Asesora sobre el Asbesto Crisotilo, Ministerio de Salud de la Nacion, Argentina

DR ANA DIGON, Medica toxicóloga, Primera Cátedra de Toxicología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina

DR MOHAMED F JEEBHAY, MBChB, PhD, Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa

DR.WAEL AL-DELAIMY, MD, PhD, Professor and Chief, Division of Global Health, University of California, San Diego, USA

DR. FIORELLA BELPOGGI, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre, Ramazzini Institute, Italy

DR. DOMYUNG PAEK, MD, MSc, ScD, Dean, School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

DR. COLIN L. SOSKOLNE, Professor of Epidemiology, Dept of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Visiting Fellow, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Australia; Immediate Past-President, Canadian Society for Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology; Fellow, Collegium Ramazzini, Italy

DR. RICHARD A. LEMEN, Ph.D., MSPH, Assistant Surgeon General (ret.), Rear Admiral, USPHS (ret.); Adjunct Professor, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

DR. ARTHUR L. FRANK, MD, PhD, Professor of Public Health, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA

DR. ANNIE THÉBAUD-MONY, PhD, Directeur de recherche honoraire à l’Inserm, Université Paris 13; Présidente de l’Association Henri Pézerat (santé Travail environnement); Porte parole de Ban Asbestos France

DR. FERNAND TURCOTTE, MD, MPH, FRCPC, Professor Emeritus of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada

DR. BARRY CASTLEMAN, ScD, Environmental Consultant, USA; author, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, USA

DR. DAVID EGILMAN, MD, MPH., Clinical Professor, Department of Family Medicine, Brown University; Editor, International Journal of Occupational & Environmental Health, Attleboro, Mass., USA

DR. CATHEY EISNER FALVO, MD, MPH, President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment; Professor and Chair, International Public Health, New York Medical College (retired); Professor of Pediatrics, NYMC (retired), USA

KATHLEEN RUFF, Author, Exporting Harm: How Canada markets asbestos to the developing world; Co-coordinator, Rotterdam Convention Alliance (ROCA); Senior Human Rights Adviser, Rideau Institute, Canada

NOTE: Titles and affiliations are given for identification purposes only.

Copy: Minister of Health, Midori de Habich; Deputy Health Minister, Dr. Jose del Carmen Sara, MD

According to today’s Le Soleil newspaper, the Quebec Minister of Health, Réjean Hébert, stated to a Le Soleil journalist that the new Parti Québécois government of Pauline Marois is preparing to ban the use of asbestos. The minister noted that during the recent election campaign in Quebec, “Our government took a position against the mining, export and use of asbestos.”

In the past few days, Radio-Canada released a report, obtained via an Access to Information request, which showed that more than a hundred hospitals and youth centres in Quebec contain asbestos.

The Quebec asbestos lobby is asking for an urgent meeting with the minister, saying that the use of asbestos-containing products, such as asbestos-cement construction materials, should be encouraged and that “scientists” say that asbestos can be safely used. They do not mention that these “scientists” are all financed by the asbestos industry.

Public opinion in Quebec is no longer on the asbestos industry’s side. The Quebec medical community, including the Quebec government’s own health experts, have shown courage and integrity over the past several years in publicly opposing the deadly propaganda of the Quebec asbestos industry and in challenging the previous Charest government’s policy of promoting the mining and export of asbestos. These public health leaders have demonstrated true commitment to defending public health.

An enormous contrast can be seen  between the way Quebec’s health authorities have fulfilled their medical obligations and spoken out clearly and strongly on asbestos harm, whereas all the Canadian government’s health authorities have been gagged and silent and have not dared to challenge their government’s policy. The Canadian government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper continues today to support the sordid, deadly propaganda of the asbestos industry and refuses to consider banning asbestos or to pass regulations to provide proper protection to federal workers at risk of being exposed to asbestos.

On December 9, 2010, Dr. Amir Khadir, leader of Québec Solidaire and member of the Quebec National Assembly, introduced a Bill to ban the mining and export of asbestos. He paid tribute to the Asia-Quebec Solidarity delegation, representing asbestos victims and ban asbestos activists from Asia, who were in attendance in the public gallery of the National Assembly, as he introduced the Bill.

Dr. Khadir was alone at that time in calling for Quebec to ban asbestos. It was a very courageous act. He and Québec Solidaire deserve enormous respect and gratitude for the courage, leadership and solidarity they demonstrated to the world.

Dr. Khadir and Québec Solidaire are no longer alone in calling for Quebec to ban asbestos. In the past few years, a dramatic and difficult battle has been fought to end Quebec’s asbestos trade. A few years ago, the Quebec asbestos industry enjoyed the total support of all the Quebec political parties and it was taboo in the media or elsewhere to challenge the industry.

Today, the situation has completely changed. Only the Quebec Liberal Party of former Premier Jean Charest continues to support asbestos. The three other Quebec political parties all support ending the mining and export of asbestos.

And now, finally, it seems that Quebec may lead the way for the rest of Canada by banning asbestos.

Russia has, it seems, succeeded in crushing a plan by the government of Thailand to ban asbestos.

In April 2011, the Thai government approved a policy on “Measures to Make Thai Society Free from Asbestos”, which included a ban on the import of chrysotile asbestos and asbestos-containing products. The government assigned a number of government agencies to take action to implement this policy.

According to the Russian Chrysotile Assocation, however, Russia has succeeded in crushing these plans. The Russian Chrysotile Assocation is an organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Russian asbestos industry. It promotes industry propaganda that chrysotile asbestos can be “safely used” and “renders legal assistance, marketing and other services to the members of the Association.”

According to the Association’s newsletter (English translation):

Russia and Thailand have agreed to deferment of measures to prohibit the import of chrysotile asbestos, said the head of the Russian delegation at a meeting of the subcommittee on Russian-Thai trade and Economic Cooperation, Igor Manylov.

Following the meeting, the parties agreed to postpone Thailand’s ban on the use and trade of asbestos until the solution of the corresponding joint expert group who will present their work to the next meeting of the Joint Russian-Thai Commission on Bilateral cooperation. The Russian side has also initiated a study with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the impact of asbestos and asbestos containing materials on human health, said Manylov.

Thailand, it should be recalled, was concerned with issues related to the safe use of asbestos. In particular, since 2010, authorities ordered suppliers to indicate that the use of asbestos can lead to lung cancer, and in 2012 planned to completely prohibit the import of this material. The government of Thailand has not explained on the basis of what research it has taken such severe measures.

It is offensive that Russia is intervening in domestic affairs in Thailand in order to protect the profits of the Russian asbestos industry. It shows a profound disrespect for democracy and for the right of the people of Thailand to take their own decisions and to set their own policy with regard to protecting the health of their own people.

It is indefensible that Russia is using its economic power in trade negotiations to bully Thailand to comply with Russia’s wishes and to serve Russia’s vested interests.

It is reprehensible that Russia denies the overwhelming scientific evidence that chrysotile asbestos is hazardous to health and that Russia is fighting against the work of the World Health Organization (WHO), which recommends that all use of chrysotile asbestos or other asbestos stop.

It is appalling that a WHO agency (IARC) is collaborating with a discredited Institute, the Russian Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Health – an Institute that is allied to the Russian asbestos industry – to carry out a research project on asbestos in Russia. The lead scientist for this IARC project is Evgeny Kovalevskiy, who works with the asbestos industry to promote the use of asbestos around the world and claims that he has seen no scientific evidence whatsoever to justify ending use of chrysotile asbestos or to justify even putting it on the Rotterdam Convention’s list of hazardous substances.

By collaborating with discredited asbestos propagandists like Kovalevskiy, IARC is allowing its name to be used, as the head of the Russian trade delegation has done in Thailand, to defeat the efforts of health professionals, who are trying to stop the use of asbestos.